IRC log of rdfa on 2010-04-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:50:28 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfa

13:50:28 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-rdfa-irc

13:50:33 [manu]

trackbot, setup meeting

13:50:33 [trackbot]

Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, setup meeting'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

13:50:43 [manu]

trackbot, start meeting

13:50:46 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs world

13:50:48 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be 7332

13:50:48 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes

13:50:49 [trackbot]

Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference

13:50:49 [trackbot]

Date: 15 April 2010

13:51:35 [manu]

Present: Ivan, Steven, MarkB, Benjamin

13:51:41 [manu]

Regrets: BenA

13:51:43 [manu]

Chair: Manu

13:52:12 [manu]

rrsagent, make logs public

13:53:24 [markbirbeck]

markbirbeck has joined #rdfa

13:55:34 [manu]

Regrets+ Toby

13:58:54 [Zakim]

SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started

13:59:01 [Zakim]

+Benjamin

13:59:38 [Zakim]

+??P9

13:59:48 [manu]

zakim, I am ??P9

13:59:48 [Zakim]

+manu; got it

14:00:17 [ivan]

zakim, dial ivan-voip

14:00:17 [Zakim]

ok, ivan; the call is being made

14:00:18 [Zakim]

+Ivan

14:00:37 [ShaneM]

ShaneM has joined #rdfa

14:01:15 [markbirbeck]

zakim, code?

14:01:16 [Zakim]

the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck

14:01:27 [Knud]

Knud has joined #rdfa

14:01:49 [Zakim]

+knud

14:01:56 [Zakim]

+markbirbeck

14:02:21 [Steven]

zakim, dial steven-617

14:02:21 [Zakim]

ok, Steven; the call is being made

14:02:22 [Zakim]

+Steven

14:02:49 [ShaneM]

zakim is being stupid

14:03:10 [markbirbeck]

zakim, be nice to ShaneM

14:03:10 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'be nice to ShaneM', markbirbeck

14:03:15 [manu]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Apr/0062.html

14:03:16 [markbirbeck]

thought so

14:03:31 [Zakim]

+ShaneM

14:04:08 [manu]

scribenick: ivan

14:04:42 [ivan]

Topic: Admin issues

14:04:56 [ivan]

manu: a couple of resolutions should be on records,

14:05:02 [ivan]

... get the issues closed

14:05:12 [ivan]

... and have a resolution on getting fpwd-s

14:05:27 [manu]

http://www.doodle.com/uqe9pxru7eu8n7d8

14:05:28 [ivan]

manu: we had a poll that we did not record

14:05:41 [Knud]

zakim, mute me

14:05:41 [Zakim]

knud should now be muted

14:05:44 [ivan]

manu: this covered the four items that had a wide agreement

14:05:53 [ivan]

... first: supporting of @profiles

14:06:13 [ivan]

... looking at it there were 2 against, we covered their reasons

14:06:21 [ivan]

... we should not rehash that

14:06:36 [manu]

PROPOSAL: Support the general concept of RDFa Profiles - an external document that specifies keywords for CURIEs.

14:07:29 [ivan]

+1

14:07:38 [manu]

+1

14:07:38 [Benjamin]

+1

14:07:41 [Knud]

+1

14:07:47 [Steven]

+1

14:07:50 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:07:56 [Steven]

This is not a vote

14:07:57 [ShaneM]

+1

14:08:09 [manu]

RESOLVED: Support the general concept of RDFa Profiles - an external document that specifies keywords for CURIEs.

14:08:38 [manu]

PROPOSAL: Support the concept of having a default prefix mechanism without RDFS resolution.

14:08:41 [ivan]

+1

14:08:50 [manu]

+1

14:08:50 [Benjamin]

+1

14:08:51 [Knud]

+1

14:08:55 [Steven]

+1

14:08:59 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:09:16 [ShaneM]

+1

14:09:26 [manu]

RESOLVED: Support the concept of having a default prefix mechanism without RDFS resolution.

14:10:09 [manu]

PROPOSAL: Support expressing the RDFa Profile document in RDFa (for example: rdfa:prefix/rdfa:keyword, or rdfa:alias)

14:10:16 [ivan]

+1

14:10:18 [Steven]

+1

14:10:19 [manu]

+1

14:10:23 [Benjamin]

+1

14:10:32 [Knud]

+1

14:11:12 [ShaneM]

+1

14:11:13 [markbirbeck]

-1

14:12:19 [ivan]

steven: mark, do you oppose it

14:12:37 [ivan]

mark: if 'one of the possible mechanism would be rdfa'

14:12:49 [ivan]

... I think we can still have that discussion

14:13:10 [ivan]

manu: we had a bit of discussions with that wording and we had a general discussion based on that

14:13:25 [manu]

RESOLVED: Support expressing the RDFa Profile document in RDFa (for example: rdfa:prefix/rdfa:keyword, or rdfa:alias)

14:13:32 [ivan]

... looking at the proposal and the +1-s I would resolve it and we can have a discussion at a later stage

14:14:12 [manu]

PROPOSAL: Provide an alternate mechanism to express mappings that does not depend on xmlns: (for example: @token, @vocab or @map)

14:14:20 [ivan]

+1

14:14:25 [manu]

+1

14:14:26 [Benjamin]

+1

14:14:29 [Knud]

+1

14:14:32 [Steven]

-1

14:14:32 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:14:50 [ivan]

ivan: same question to steven... does he oppose or can live with it?

14:15:18 [ivan]

steven: I was not sure whether I should say -1 or 0, an alternate means 'as well as'

14:15:27 [ShaneM]

+1

14:15:27 [ivan]

manu: this is really for languages without xmlns:

14:15:52 [ivan]

... and html5 is debatable, but the html wg folks are claiming so

14:16:03 [ivan]

... the vast majority of our arguments revolved around that

14:16:14 [ivan]

... let us assume that there are languages that do not have xmlns:

14:16:20 [ivan]

... for them this makes it easier

14:16:21 [ShaneM]

Moreover using xmlns pollutes the namespaces of a parser unnecessarily.

14:16:40 [ivan]

Steven: I do not agree that html5 does not fall into this category

14:16:43 [ivan]

q+

14:16:48 [manu]

ack ivan

14:17:58 [manu]

RESOLVED: Provide an alternate mechanism to express mappings that does not depend on xmlns: (for example: @token, @vocab or @map)

14:18:12 [ivan]

ivan: what about deprecating xmlns?

14:18:19 [manu]

Topic: xmlns: deprecation in RDFa 1.1

14:18:21 [ivan]

... it is in the current version of the rdfa core

14:18:42 [manu]

+1 for deprecation of xmlns:

14:18:49 [Steven]

-1 for deprecation

14:18:50 [manu]

Ivan: I can live with deprecation of xmlns:

14:19:08 [manu]

Ivan: we need a resolution for this

14:19:16 [ivan]

shane: I did off-line doing this unilateraly

14:19:32 [ivan]

... I agree that this should be accepted by the wg

14:19:38 [ivan]

... having two is confusing

14:19:53 [ivan]

manu: the reason I thought we would be going

14:20:02 [ivan]

... the issue is confusing having two of them

14:20:09 [ivan]

... we had that discussion before

14:20:10 [Steven]

I disagree more strongly on this one than the last

14:20:20 [ivan]

... we probably would have done differently

14:20:30 [ivan]

steven: I am against deprecating it

14:20:30 [markbirbeck]

q+

14:20:44 [ivan]

... I do not like breaking backward compatibility

14:20:48 [ivan]

manu: it does not

14:21:01 [ivan]

... deprecation means a strong a signal not to use

14:21:15 [ivan]

shane: technically it means it is not removed yet but it can be

14:21:31 [manu]

ack mark

14:21:36 [ivan]

... steven, if it said 'prefix is preferred, is that fine'?

14:21:38 [ivan]

steven: yes

14:21:46 [ivan]

mark: that means there is a decision to remove it

14:21:56 [ivan]

... we have to send a strong signal

14:22:48 [ivan]

... I do not agree that we would have done it differently

14:23:01 [manu]

q+ to clarify "we'd do it differently"

14:23:10 [ivan]

... at the time we used what w3c had an emphasis on at the time

14:23:20 [ShaneM]

+1 to marks concern

14:23:54 [ivan]

ack manu

14:23:54 [Zakim]

manu, you wanted to clarify "we'd do it differently"

14:23:54 [Steven]

+1 to Mark

14:24:59 [Knud]

"xmlns is discouraged"?

14:25:00 [manu]

is my audio breaking up?

14:25:09 [markbirbeck]

+1 to Knud

14:25:43 [ivan]

PROPOSED: the FPWD should say something like "prefix is preferred" but not explicitly deprecate xmlns

14:25:46 [Zakim]

-ShaneM

14:25:47 [Zakim]

+ShaneM

14:26:06 [ivan]

PROPOSAL: the FPWD should say something like "prefix is preferred" but not explicitly deprecate xmlns

14:26:20 [ShaneM]

+1

14:26:21 [manu]

+1

14:26:22 [ivan]

+1

14:26:28 [Knud]

+1

14:26:31 [Benjamin]

+1

14:26:31 [Steven]

I can live with that

14:28:31 [markbirbeck]

0

14:29:52 [manu]

PROPOSAL: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD

14:30:08 [manu]

+1

14:30:08 [ivan]

+1

14:30:10 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:30:23 [Knud]

+1

14:30:23 [Benjamin]

+1

14:30:24 [Steven]

+1

14:30:29 [ivan]

RESOLVED: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD

14:30:35 [ShaneM]

+1

14:31:03 [manu]

Topic: Resolve to publish RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 FPWD

14:31:16 [ivan]

manu: shane, an overview?

14:31:46 [ivan]

shane: as far as can see, modulo pubrules, the document is in agreement with the resolutions of the group

14:31:56 [ivan]

... fpwd does not have to be perfect

14:32:17 [ivan]

... xhtml did not have the same review than core, but that is all right, there is nothing there:-)

14:32:26 [ivan]

... i have concerns about the core

14:32:42 [ivan]

... as soon as we put it out to the public, we will have the public reacting

14:32:55 [ShaneM]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/

14:33:11 [ShaneM]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-rdfa-core-20100414/

14:33:20 [ShaneM]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20100413/

14:33:25 [ivan]

q+

14:33:34 [manu]

ack ivan

14:34:08 [manu]

PROPOSAL: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft

14:34:53 [manu]

Ivan: Are we going to publish RDFa DOM API now as well?

14:35:37 [manu]

Ivan: I think people might misunderstand that publishing RDFa DOM API at a later date as something negative.

14:35:46 [manu]

q+ to discuss RDFa DOM API publication

14:35:50 [markbirbeck]

q+

14:36:19 [manu]

Ivan: I'm concerned that people may think we're not concerned about the RDFa DOM API

14:36:23 [manu]

ack markbirbeck

14:36:30 [ivan]

mark: I can understand where you get Ivan

14:36:33 [ivan]

... but I disagree

14:36:52 [ivan]

...the audience to this spec is very different

14:37:12 [ivan]

.. my feeling is that the rdfa core and the xhtml will go unnoticed

14:37:21 [ivan]

... but the rdfa itself is the story

14:37:30 [ivan]

... however the dom api is a different audience

14:37:41 [ivan]

... we really think we should aim at the html authors

14:37:42 [ivan]

q+

14:37:46 [manu]

ack manu

14:37:46 [Zakim]

manu, you wanted to discuss RDFa DOM API publication

14:37:51 [ivan]

manu: I agree with mark

14:38:13 [ivan]

... i do not want us to get into mind set where we think that the different specs that are not tied together

14:38:23 [ivan]

... we should not create a binding among them

14:38:33 [ivan]

... suppose we get all of ivan's fears

14:38:41 [ivan]

... we have to have to courage to take the heat

14:38:54 [ivan]

... we are not talking about pushing the dom api by a couple of week

14:39:05 [markbirbeck]

s/that are not tied/are tied/

14:39:07 [ivan]

... if those weeks end up with nasty remarks

14:39:19 [ivan]

... we will publish the api document soon enough

14:39:22 [manu]

ack ivan

14:40:07 [Knud]

s/by a couple of weeks/by a couple of months

14:40:15 [markbirbeck]

Fair point Ivan. I was bending the stick too far. :)

14:41:16 [Zakim]

-knud

14:41:21 [Knud]

argh

14:41:35 [manu]

Ivan: I hope I'm being paranoid - and I wouldn't object to FPWD.

14:41:44 [ivan]

s/by couple of months/by a couple of weeks/

14:41:51 [markbirbeck]

@Knud: We're only editing the record, not people's opinions!

14:41:52 [manu]

Ivan: I think these are the same audiences - we've changed some pretty major stuff.

14:42:10 [Zakim]

+knud

14:42:16 [manu]

PROPOSAL: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft

14:43:05 [manu]

+1

14:43:05 [ivan]

+0.5

14:43:06 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:43:07 [Benjamin]

+1

14:43:10 [Knud]

+1

14:43:11 [ShaneM]

+1

14:43:11 [markbirbeck]

:)

14:43:22 [Steven]

+1

14:43:36 [manu]

RESOLVED: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft

14:44:00 [manu]

PROPOSAL: Publish XHTML+RDFa 1.1 as First Public Working Draft

14:44:04 [manu]

+1

14:44:04 [Steven]

+1

14:44:06 [Benjamin]

+1

14:44:07 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:44:09 [Knud]

+1

14:44:13 [ivan]

+0.5 (just to be consistent)

14:44:23 [markbirbeck]

I was wondering what you'd do. :)

14:44:24 [ShaneM]

+1

14:44:29 [manu]

RESOLVED: Publish XHTML+RDFa 1.1 as First Public Working Draft

14:46:45 [ivan]

clap clap clap

14:46:50 [ivan]

wohooo

14:46:52 [ivan]

etc

14:46:56 [markbirbeck]

Nice work Shane!

14:47:08 [ivan]

topic: rdfa dom api

14:47:25 [ivan]

manu: I have not put the api on the focus on the agendas

14:47:35 [ivan]

... we are not prepared to publish already

14:47:48 [ivan]

... mark and and I had discussion on how to improve

14:47:54 [markbirbeck]

q+ To apologise for causing delay on DOM API.

14:48:02 [ivan]

... what we want to do is to focus solely on the dom api for the coming 2 weeks

14:48:21 [Benjamin]

Current version of the RDFa DOM API document: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/

14:48:29 [ivan]

mark: apologize for causing delay, I was away with no internet connection...

14:48:44 [Benjamin]

And the latest version of the Javascript prototype: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/rdfa_dom_api.js

14:48:55 [ivan]

... the key issue I am trying to push this towards

14:49:18 [ivan]

... we should give people an api to select the elements of the dom that resulted in a triple in the triple store

14:49:32 [ivan]

... I put something up today for us to discuss

14:49:47 [ivan]

manu: the concern I had is that I cannot implement that in ff using the parser

14:50:04 [ivan]

... i know we are talking about an rdfa api

14:50:22 [ivan]

... but it will be very difficult to implement that for implementers

14:50:31 [ivan]

... i do not know how to implement that in c and c++

14:50:38 [ivan]

mark: i think it is pretty easy

14:50:46 [ivan]

manu: i should see some code

14:50:58 [ivan]

... if we cannot implement it in the c and c++ then it is easy

14:51:11 [ivan]

mark: this raises the question what we want to achieve with this api

14:51:26 [ivan]

... just querying triples is not really useful

14:51:54 [ivan]

manu: that is not what i mean; if we want people to write ff extensions that modify the dom and give them an extra methods

14:52:12 [ivan]

... this is usually done is c and c++, mainly with @profile means this is the way to be done

14:52:34 [ivan]

... I do not think you can do it in pure javascript

14:52:41 [ivan]

... i do not care about, say, redland

14:52:57 [ivan]

... it is the restrictions of ff and chrome that puts on developers

14:53:15 [ivan]

mark: if we want to do something for the browser we have to see what is useful

14:53:18 [manu]

+1 to what Mark just said.

14:53:28 [ivan]

... we may need an additional thing in the api

14:53:44 [ivan]

... maybe we need some events that get passed

14:53:54 [ivan]

... we have to try to solve this rather than drop it

14:54:30 [ivan]

manu: with that said, do you have examples of extending the Document object in FF not using javascript and not something else>?

14:55:02 [ivan]

markbirbeck: we had all kinds of things experimented with in our xforms work, there are lots of stuffs we are looking at

14:55:18 [ivan]

manu: are you opposed getting just triples in javascript?

14:55:44 [ivan]

markbirbeck: i do not have a problem with some kind of layering

14:55:55 [ivan]

... eg in sparql you have the notion of projection

14:56:08 [ivan]

... the result is the set of results with all kinds of properties

14:56:16 [ivan]

... you get back objects

14:56:32 [ivan]

... that is natural for js programmers

14:56:34 [ivan]

q+

14:56:37 [Benjamin]

The current API version may be easily extended to query DOM nodes with certain RDFa content.

14:56:37 [ivan]

ack markbirbeck

14:56:37 [Zakim]

markbirbeck, you wanted to apologise for causing delay on DOM API.

14:56:38 [manu]

ack mark

14:57:07 [ivan]

markbirbeck: i have not looked at other languages, we may have a language specific holes where objects can be used

14:57:22 [ivan]

... and languages should fill that in

14:57:36 [ivan]

... but all objects have a pointer at that element where the triple comes from

14:57:59 [Benjamin]

q+

14:58:23 [ivan]

... we get both the semantics and the element that produced that

14:58:26 [manu]

ack ivan

14:59:38 [manu]

q+ to discuss triples-as-objects

14:59:41 [Benjamin]

-1 to Ivans proposal

14:59:48 [manu]

ack benjamin

15:00:04 [manu]

Ivan: We don't have to provide a full implementation when doing FPWD

15:00:13 [ivan]

Benjamin: when you look at the document you can see that you cannot publish it

15:00:26 [ivan]

... I think we should reach a concensus about the general style of the document

15:00:49 [ivan]

... we should get a feeling for what the api would look like

15:00:51 [manu]

q-

15:00:55 [manu]

q+ to end the telecon

15:01:04 [ivan]

... add mark's proposal to this and see how it works together

15:01:10 [ShaneM]

Remember that published documents have their own momentum... Once it starts rolling in a certain direction it is hard to change. The faster it rolls the harder it is to redirect.

15:01:40 [ivan]

manu: mark, what would help us most is to give us examples

15:01:47 [ivan]

... see how we can have this happen

15:01:53 [ivan]

meeting adjurned

15:02:10 [Zakim]

-markbirbeck

15:02:12 [Zakim]

-Steven

15:02:14 [Zakim]

-knud

15:02:20 [Zakim]

-Benjamin

15:02:31 [Knud]

+1 to what Shane just said

15:02:50 [markbirbeck]

+1.5

15:03:00 [markbirbeck]

(I'm using up the bits that Ivan didn't use. :))

15:03:16 [manu]

zakim, who is on the call?

15:03:39 [ShaneM]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html

15:04:02 [Zakim]

On the phone I see manu, Ivan, ShaneM

15:06:04 [ivan]

zakim, drop me

15:06:13 [Zakim]

Ivan is being disconnected

15:06:15 [Zakim]

-Ivan

15:06:17 [Zakim]

-manu

15:06:19 [Zakim]

SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended

15:06:23 [Zakim]

Attendees were Benjamin, manu, Ivan, knud, markbirbeck, Steven, ShaneM

15:07:22 [manu]

rrsagent, draft minutes

15:07:22 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-rdfa-minutes.html manu

15:10:38 [ShaneM]

ShaneM has left #rdfa

16:39:41 [manu]

rrsagent, bye

16:39:41 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items

16:39:43 [manu]

zakim, bye